Guns are not bad. Sure, they can be scary in the wrong hands, but these "wrong hands" is the reason why these debates come up in the wrong place. Guns, in addition to all technology, are innocent in nature. The real question here is if people should be allowed to use such technology in spite of the immediate threat of its potential for misuse. It all depends on the individual. Guns are good for some people; namely, those who use them for sports such as discus shooting and hunting. The other side is obvious. So, to answer your question, guns are not bad, it is just the people who use them, and said people should not be allowed to use guns.

10/7/2006 8:42:25 PM

Quote :

"So, to answer your question, guns are not bad, it is just the people who use them, and said people should not be allowed to use guns."

best watch yourself. im sure at least 3 ppl are going to go into a fit over this statement.

10/7/2006 8:51:23 PM

babies should have guns..

2nd AMENDMENT!!

[Edited on October 7, 2006 at 9:27 PM. Reason : LONG LIVE #2]

10/7/2006 9:27:16 PM

^

10/8/2006 1:08:00 AM

Quote :

"the purpose of pools is not to kill"

We went over this. Knives, bows, crossbows, slingshots, swords and catapults are all devices with a purpose of killing. Yet none of them are banned, there's no crossbow registry and you don't need a backgroud check to buy a sword.

So then you switched to the "NO ONE NEEDS A GUN!" argument. Well no one needs a pool either so once again:

BAN POOLS AND STANDING BODIES OF WATER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

10/8/2006 11:36:07 AM

When drive-bys and school massacres are committed with crosbows, swords, and pools then maybe making the comparison won't make you sound like a moron. Hell, when crossbows, swords, and pools are capable of killing people with the efficiency of guns, then that analogy will be just fine.

I'm not for banning guns, but you're not really helping when you try make that kind of argument.



[Edited on October 8, 2006 at 12:03 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2006 12:00:16 PM

if that is all that is available they will

and a modern bow or crossbow will kill just as well

10/8/2006 12:24:26 PM

Quote :

"Knives, bows, crossbows, slingshots, swords and catapults are all devices with a purpose of killing"

i only care about things that effectively kill.

and only type of thing was designed to kill effectively: guns.

10/8/2006 1:46:06 PM

^^ If you beleive a modern bow or crossbow is as efficient a killing machine as a modern gun, you are a moron. Although someone who has used and practiced with bows for years can be quite effective at impressive ranges, guns still have higher rates of fire, killing range, concealability, and penetration.

10/8/2006 2:10:07 PM

hahah you called me a moron in an argument about guns and weapons

lol

I guess two weapons that conquered nations in years past are ineffective killing machines

if crossbows and bows were not efficient killing machines it would be illegal to hunt with them

bullets in calibers that are inefficient for killing are illegal for hunting use because they maim instead of kill

are they on par with firearms in rate of fire and range past 50 yeards, no

but if I wanted to kill someone and had no access to a gun, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a broadhead on a carbon fiber shaft at close to 400 fps at them... it would work just fine

btw, arrows usually have more penetration on a living target than bullets... proper "killing" bullets hit their target expand and cause tissue trauma while arrows go straight through causing the victim to "bleed out" very quickly


quit learning about weapons via hollywood

10/8/2006 2:21:32 PM

Quote :

"When drive-bys and school massacres are committed with crosbows, swords, and pools then maybe making the comparison won't make you sound like a moron. "

Ask and ye shall recieve:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/24/nstab24.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/24/ixnewstop.html

I'm also pretty sure I posted a thread about similar incidents a while back, but I can't find it.

10/8/2006 2:30:04 PM

WTF...when I talk about drive-by bayonettings, it's as a joke!

10/8/2006 2:33:09 PM

we need knives for cooking.

10/8/2006 2:37:24 PM

sounds like they need a knife registry also


then they could have caught this guy

10/8/2006 2:53:26 PM

no, there are too many knives.

10/8/2006 3:00:44 PM

^^^^^

Only one person died. Drive by knifings seem a bit less lethal than drive by shootings don't they? This seems like a story more about the shittyness of london police than the deadlyness of knives...

Quote :

"quit learning about weapons via hollywood"

If you think someone could cause comparable carnage with a bow or crossbow to what they could with a gun then yes, you are a moron. Guns replaced crossbows and bows as the ranged weapon of choice for a reason.

Yeah you can kill people with knives bows and crossbows. Is anyone saying you can't? Is anyone even saying you can't kill someone very well with those things? Nope.

If you're extremely skilled and practice very well, you could be quite deadly with a bow. The english longbowmen that "conquered empires" were amazing marksmen. They also practiced more in a day than many people in this age are even awake. So sure, gangs of highly trained elite bowman could be almost as dangerous in some instances as a couple teenages picking up handguns for the first time.

Of course, you couldn't sneak a bow into a school very easily. The arrows would be pretty slow reloading too. Come on, arguing that bows and crossbows are even reomotely the same kind of threat as a gun is silly.

Quote :

"but if I wanted to kill someone and had no access to a gun, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a broadhead on a carbon fiber shaft at close to 400 fps at them... it would work just fine"

In that case, bashing someone over the back of the head with a rock would be equally effective. I'm not saying you'll ever be able to make it so someone can't kill someone else if they want to. Arguing that guns, pools, bows, and crossbows pose the same kind of potential threat is still moronic. If they did, then why would anyone bother owning a gun? Surely you'd be able to defend your home just as well with a crossbow or sword. Why even bother with those when a pool would do just as well.

Why don't students hold their schoolmates hostage with hunting bows? Surely one student with a bow could kill and terrify an equal number of students as one with a bow right?

I'm not arguing you couldn't kill people, even large ammounts of people, with these weapons. That's why banning weapons for the purpose of stopping all murders is silly. That's also why nobody is arguing for that and why framing the argument like that shows a clear lack of understanding. Did I mention I'm not for banning guns? Yeah I think I did.

My problem here is that you are unwilling to accept that guns are vastly more effective at facilitating the kind of unexpected and rapid violence sprees that are so effective at grabbing headlines. If they weren't the most effective and efficient killing tool in, even the hands of the relatively untrained, then they wouldn't be so damned prolific!

[Edited on October 8, 2006 at 4:53 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2006 4:28:41 PM

10/8/2006 4:29:35 PM

10/8/2006 5:38:32 PM

^^^ In an average drive by shooting, how many people die? More than 1/6? I honestly don't know, but you can't say the knifing is less lethal without the answer.

Quote :

"Of course, you couldn't sneak a bow into a school very easily. The arrows would be pretty slow reloading too. Come on, arguing that bows and crossbows are even reomotely the same kind of threat as a gun is silly."

True, but compared to most crime, how much is accounted for in mass school killings? I mean I know we like to sensationalize but when we look at the actual crime rates for the US, how much crime is mass killings and how much is one on one or similar situations?

Quote :

"My problem here is that you are unwilling to accept that guns are vastly more effective at facilitating the kind of unexpected and rapid violence sprees that are so effective at grabbing headlines. If they weren't the most effective and efficient killing tool in, even the hands of the relatively untrained, then they wouldn't be so damned prolific!"

I would argue though that the restriction of the guns won't solve the problem. If you restrict the guns which make this easy, you'll just make the people who intend to go on mass killings work harder, but in the end, you haven't solved the problem which is the person is going on a killing spree in the first place.

If anyone has access, this might be some interesting reading:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-7732(199103)69%3A3%3C669%3ATEOWOH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

Quote :

"Abstract This article assesses the impact of weapons, especially firearms, on three types of outcomes of threatening or hostile interactions: (1) whether a threatening situation escalates to an actual physical attack, (2) whether the attack is completed, i.e., results in an injury, and (3) whether the injury inflicted results in death. Data on violent incidents among strangers, taken from the 1979-1985 National Crime Surveys and the 1982 Supplementary Homicide Reports, were used to estimate bivariate probit equations with a correction for sample selection bias. Results indicate that deadly weapons, including firearms, appear to inhibit attack and, in the case of an attack, to reduce the probability of injury, whereas, once an injury occurs, they appear to increase the probability of death. The overall net effect of the availability of guns on the probability of the victim's death is very close to zero."

[Edited on October 8, 2006 at 5:42 PM. Reason : sfdg]

10/8/2006 5:41:45 PM

^ that study right there yells out that its biased.

the study looked at

Quote :

"threatening or hostile interactions"

and cannot conclude anything beyond the what their data tells them. the study COULD show
that people who are armed are more likely to end up ok in an attack. the study cannot make a
conclusion based on the net effect of the increase in guns. that wast a variable, that wasnt studied.
hence, propaganda.

Quote :

"you haven't solved the problem which is the person is going on a killing spree in the first place. "

you cant stop violent intentions. there is no reason to supply people the tools to fullfill the dreams of their most homicidal fantasy.

you want to protect yourself? buy a stun gun or learn not to be such a fragile pussy.

[Edited on October 8, 2006 at 5:50 PM. Reason : hkl]

10/8/2006 5:49:25 PM

So, efficiency is the argument now? What bullshit! At any rate, I don't think that it gets much more efficient than over 500,000 people hacked to death with machetes. Why can't you comrades grasp this?

http://www.gendercide.org/case_rwanda.html

10/8/2006 5:51:17 PM

you walk down the street with a machete and see if youre arrested.

[Edited on October 8, 2006 at 5:53 PM. Reason : HINT: YOU WILL BE]

10/8/2006 5:53:12 PM

depends on where you're at

10/8/2006 6:15:05 PM

Quote :

"you haven't solved the problem which is the person is going on a killing spree in the first place."

I'm not trying to. That's impossible. I'm saying that trying to argue that banning guns means we should ban knives, pools, crossbows, bows etc. is fallacious. I'm not for banning guns and I hate it when people use that same bogus argument to defend guns.

You can't really defend gun ownership unless you're going to be honest about the fact that guns are by far the most effective and efficient killing tool for any given untrained user. People who want to do away with guns (not just legality but actual availibility) don't think doing that will end violence. They think that it will make things like columbine a hell of a lot harder to pull off. They're right. You can't hold people hostage and kill large groups of people as easily or effectively with bows and knives as you can with guns. Trying to claim otherwise does nothing for the cause of protecting gun ownership.

The effective counter-argument has nothing to do with bullshit comparisons to pools. Talk about the impossibility of controlling the already massive supply of guns sure. Talk about the relative low occurance of these spree killings in relation to other problems. Admit that drastically curbing gun availibility would most likely reduce columbine-like events but at the same time suggest the cost for actually reducing that supply. Over the last 5 years an average of around 8 people died in school shootings per year. Compare that to the number of people that would have to die to destroy the supply of illicit fireamrs in the united states! Imagine the cost of such an undertaking and compare it to improving counseling and security in schools!

Reducing the actual availibility of firearms would certainly reduce the number of murders, school shootings, drive bys, etc. in the US. That's ok to admit, it's true. Rather than saying "OMG BAN POOOOOLS!!!!!" try saying "Do you have any idea how many ATF, police, and FBI officers would die making that work? Do you have any idea how much money that would cost" There's so many better ways to employ our law enforcement and use our tax dollars if we really want to curb death.

Quote :

"According to the HRC data, 139 people died as a result of drive-by shootings between January and the end of October 1993. In the same period, the HRC lists 134 known injuries, with many reports incomplete in respect of the actual numbers injured. It is also not known in how many cases the injuries eventually led to death. It is therefore deduced that the real number of injuries exceeds that which the HRC describes. The number of people injured probably exceeds the number of deaths caused by drive-by shootings. In some drive-by attacks, notably in the Western Cape, neither deaths nor injuries were reported."

http://www.csvr.org.za/papers/papdrive.htm


Closet thing I could find to drive by statistics. That's about 50% mortality rate on those ijured versus less than 20%. I'd also point out that drive by knifings require you to slow down or stop and either trick someone into coming over or for you to actually get out of the car. To continue to argue that drive by knifings are a comparable alternative to drive by shootings is silly. Again, it's absolute ability of someone to comit violence with alternatives, it's the relative ability.

[Edited on October 8, 2006 at 6:31 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2006 6:15:54 PM

http://tinyurl.com/zd8wo

Quote :

"Abstract This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993."

[Edited on October 8, 2006 at 6:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/8/2006 6:20:33 PM

^^^^ Shut the fuck up, you idiot. What does that have to do with anything? Address the over half-million dead from machete attacks!

Since you're obviously so concerned about the application of laws by the police state, what about the so-called assault weapons ban? It didn't mean shit and it didn't accomplish shit.

http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_3274277

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/859648611.html?dids=859648611:859648611&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+28%2C+2005&author=John+R.+Lott+Jr.&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=B.13&desc=Commentary

10/8/2006 6:35:45 PM

Quote :

"Address the over half-million dead from machete attacks!"

hmmmm welll....

laws made by our conngress apply only to the US

your average gun nut is a little dim, it seems.

[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 3:15 AM. Reason : dfg]

10/9/2006 3:02:54 AM

^ Oh, fuck off, you dumbass. Everybody except your dumbass knows Rwanda is another country.

You moved the debate to the area of efficiency--try to keep up with your own posts and positions, please. The following is the post of yours in question: "i [sic] only care about things that effectively kill. and [sic] only [sic] type of thing was designed to kill effectively: guns." ADDRESS THE EFFICIENCY--AND EFFECTIVENESS--OF OVER 500,000 KILLED BY MACHETES, JOSH8315, OR SHUT UP!

I posted the facts about the so-called assault weapons ban (1) because you need to know it, and (2) to address the following position that you posted earlier in this thread: "then [sic] those laws should be replaced with ones that work." More centralized governmental control, eh, comrade? The so-called assault weapons ban is evidence that more laws won't work. By the way, you STILL have not defined "assault weapons."

Who's the fucking nut? The answer is self-evident.

10/9/2006 4:04:58 AM

Quote :

"and cannot conclude anything beyond the what their data tells them. the study COULD show that people who are armed are more likely to end up ok in an attack. the study cannot make a conclusion based on the net effect of the increase in guns. that wast a variable, that wasnt studied. hence, propaganda. "

The study never claims to know what the entire net effect of having guns is. What they do claim is that the net effect of having guns ON YOUR CHANCES OF SURVIVING A HOSTILE SITUATION is 0.

Quote :

"there is no reason to supply people the tools to fullfill the dreams of their most homicidal fantasy."

People will supply or make their own tools if none are availible. The kids who did columbine didn't go to the local store and buy grenades, and they didn't steal explosives from anyone, they made them on their own.

Quote :

"you want to protect yourself? buy a stun gun or learn not to be such a fragile pussy. "

And when you miss with your single shot? There is a reason that guns are easier to use for inexperienced people, it allows them to have a second chance.

Quote :

"I'm not trying to. That's impossible. I'm saying that trying to argue that banning guns means we should ban knives, pools, crossbows, bows etc. is fallacious. I'm not for banning guns and I hate it when people use that same bogus argument to defend guns."

It's not really a main argument, just an answer to the argument that the reason guns need to be more restricted than other deadly items is because "guns are designed to kill" and "no one needs them". There's a whole range of devices that kill people all the time that fall into either one of those catagories that are far easier to obtain and in many cases more likely to kill an innocent person.

Quote :

"You can't really defend gun ownership unless you're going to be honest about the fact that guns are by far the most effective and efficient killing tool for any given untrained user. People who want to do away with guns (not just legality but actual availibility) don't think doing that will end violence. They think that it will make things like columbine a hell of a lot harder to pull off. They're right. You can't hold people hostage and kill large groups of people as easily or effectively with bows and knives as you can with guns. Trying to claim otherwise does nothing for the cause of protecting gun ownership. "

I never said anything about them being more efficient or effective, though I would argue that mostly the reason they are the weapon of choice is due to rate of fire, allowing people to have a second chance. Arguably, if you could have a bow with even a moderate rate of fire it would be a far more likely candidate for mass killings because a bow is silent (relative to a gun). I'm sure part of it also has to do with the fact that a gun goes boom and thus sends people scattering.

Quote :

"Reducing the actual availibility of firearms would certainly reduce the number of murders, school shootings, drive bys, etc. in the US. That's ok to admit, it's true."

The problem is, I don't think that's true. Sure it will reduce school shooting and drive bys if only because it wouldn't be a school shooting or a drive by shooting, it would be a stabbing, or a beating or explosions or any number of other ways to kill someone. These people are already looking to kill, and I would argue that reducing the availibility of guns will do nothing to actualy stop them from killing. Sure it might stop them from killing 5 or 6 people at a time, but arguably so might having a trained and armed populous. These mass killers get away with killing so many people because unlike a kid with a knife or a bow, people don't try to jump them or take them down. Yes, I realize that guns are dangerous and outside a certain distance more dangerous than a knife, but the reason so many of these sprees result in multiple deaths is because the shooter goes unchallenged through the school until the cops arive, and then he often kills himself. A kid wandering the school and stabing at people with a knife would probably be just as effective if he went unchalenged like most of these shooters.

Quote :

"To continue to argue that drive by knifings are a comparable alternative to drive by shootings is silly. Again, it's absolute ability of someone to comit violence with alternatives, it's the relative ability. "

I didn't argue that, you merely asked to show that drivebys are comitted with things other than guns. The point was to answer that guns need to be restricted because "they are designed to kill".

There are plenty of good reasons to have a few general restrictions on guns and weapons of all types, but invariably talk about restricting guns to curb violence will lead into the banning or mass unavailibility areas because as you point out, it would be a huge cost and would be largely uneffective without massive bans or restrictions that in the end, would (in my opinion) be more harmful to society than good.

If you want to have a real discussion about gun control on the whole I'm more than willing, most of what I've posted recently was in answer to JoshTroll. I don't think everyone and anyone deserves access to weaponry but I do think we have some overberring controls and regulations that don't solve any problems, just make it more difficult to be a law abiding citizen.

10/9/2006 8:51:38 AM

Other than Josh###s, which goes without saying, this has been a pretty nice debate on gun ownership over the last couple of pages.

GG guys and gals.

10/9/2006 10:02:42 AM

oh hooksaw, my wayward dad, there you go again with the rwanda argument.

this argument sucks because it was conducted mainly by TRAINED (which is one of his big arguments) militia and secondarily by a scared populus. they ambushed a bunch of 3rd world citizens who had no one to call for help and likely had nothing to defend themselves (including knives, guns, pools, croquet mallets, etc).

10/9/2006 10:22:11 AM

^ Yeah, because you folks will never and can't properly address the Rwanda issue. Tonight on the Military Channel: The secret machete training of the Rwandan militia. See how these "TRAINED" citizen-soldiers increased their killing efficiency and effectiveness from about a quarter-million to over a half-million unarmed people hacked to death. How fucking absurd!

"[They] likely had nothing to defend themselves (including knives, guns. . . " (cyrion). Yes, I agree. Guns would have been a desirable self-defense tool. QED.

10/9/2006 10:37:41 AM

they probably didnt even have a good rock stashed away to help themselves.

are you saying that there arent ways to be a better knife/sword fighter?

either way, the whole point is that a bunch of militia ambushing people with machettes and then scaring the other half of the population into helping them ISNT comparable to anything we're talking about. rwanda being a 3rd world country definately comes into play here as well.

how are pro-gun people going to talk about columbine being an unusual occurance, but the rwandan massacre is plenty common for machette violence.

[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 10:56 AM. Reason : .]

10/9/2006 10:53:13 AM

^

10/9/2006 11:44:34 AM

Quote :

"how are pro-gun people going to talk about columbine being an unusual occurance, but the rwandan massacre is plenty common for machette violence. "

The same way anti-gun people do the opposite. If you're going to frame your debate around mass killings and the danger any particular weapon presents, you need to look at all mass killings. In otherwords, drop the columbine card and the otherside will have to drop the machette card.

It's the same with the pools argument above. If the debate hadn't been framed by "people don't need guns, guns kill innocent people, people shouldn't have guns" then the pool argument wouldn't have had a point.

10/9/2006 1:29:11 PM

difference is, you havent seen me use the columbine card. my point is, everyone needs to drop that whole act. if i was going to concern myself with mass killings, however, itd be with kids killing each other in school as opposed to massacres in 3rd world nations.

[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 1:37 PM. Reason : i see hooksaw is back to his old ways. good comeback though.]

10/9/2006 1:36:28 PM

I quit this thread a while back


I'd rather argue with the wall in my office


I'll probably rejoin it again to lol at joshnumbers or something later though

10/9/2006 1:45:29 PM

with good reason. everything that needs to be said has been said. i dont know who the hell bumped it in the first place.

10/9/2006 1:51:52 PM

Quote :

" People will supply or make their own tools if none are availible. "

which will TAKE TIME

TIME COPS AND OTHER PEOPLE COULD USE TO STOP THEM


dur.....

10/9/2006 1:57:15 PM

^ Yes, let's call the politburo and its apparatchiks. We must turn to the state for salvation, comrades.

10/9/2006 2:23:48 PM

CRIME PREVENTION = COMMUNISM

true story people

[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 2:43 PM. Reason : i just won]

10/9/2006 2:43:25 PM

Sure. Citizens would be safer if we took away ALL their rights. Right, comrade?

10/9/2006 2:46:44 PM

I had a professor once who grew up in the Soviet Union. He said there was no crime and no drugs. Would you be willing to trade the lifestyle you have for living forever making about $20 a day and living in a flat, with chronic food shortages as a slave to the state for zero crime and drugs?

10/9/2006 3:29:52 PM

Then your professor lied to you. Crime (espescially embezzlement) was a way of life in the Soviet Union. Hell, that's why Russia is half-way to being a kleptocracy right now.

I think it's odd your professor would lie so obviously like that, considering all the people I've know who lived under soviet rule have tons of stories about how everyone stole all the time.

[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 4:16 PM. Reason : ]

10/9/2006 4:16:12 PM

well if everyone stole all the time why the hell are so many soapboxers socialists


IT DOESN'T WORK

10/9/2006 4:46:55 PM

Quote :

"which will TAKE TIME TIME COPS AND OTHER PEOPLE COULD USE TO STOP THEM dur....."

I have yet to find a examples mass killing where there was not already time before hand. These things don't spontaneously happen in a day, these people plan for months ahead of time, and the only thing you hear from everyone who supposedly knew them was that they don't belive it that whoever comitted the crime was so normal or so quiet and showed no signs. This despite evidence pointing to the fact that there were plenty of signs but no one payed attention.

How much extra time do you think forcing them to plan their attack better will give you? Enough to warrant the expenditure of the resources and lives it would take to bring about such an event?

10/9/2006 5:16:16 PM

Quote :

"Citizens would be safer if we took away ALL their rights."

and they would be safer if there were fewer guns. becuase, guns kill more lives then they save.

Quote :

"whoever comitted the crime was so normal or so quiet and showed no signs"

sometimes. sometimes more time can save lives. which is common sense.

[Edited on October 9, 2006 at 9:11 PM. Reason : 5]

10/9/2006 9:10:32 PM

It doesn't make sense that I can own a gun and not be able to grow a plant.

10/9/2006 9:23:14 PM

^^ prove that guns take away more lives(non combat) than they save

^ well yeah

sucks huh

10/9/2006 10:37:25 PM

^^^ Bullshit:

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: (1) Those who fear and distrust the people. . . . (2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe. . .depository of the public interest" (Thomas Jefferson). Indeed.

http://www.gunowners.org/fs9504.htm

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HYOiZg1bYEIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&sig=nku4NRjWMw1HZy9dDyiRCNvWAIM&dq=%22Lott%22+%22The+Bias+Against+Guns:+Why+Almost+Everything+You%27ve+...%22+&prev=http://scholar.google.com/scholar%3Fq%3Dauthor:%2522Lott%2522%2Bintitle:%2522The%2BBias%2BAgainst%2BGuns:%2BWhy%2BAlmost%2BEverything%2BYou%2527ve%2B...%2522%2B%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

10/10/2006 12:10:14 AM